Scientists respond to Gore's warnings . . .

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jun 15 2006, 09:11 PM) [snapback]271925[/snapback]</div>

WOW, interesting read!

 

Hasn't it been established that Carter is on ExxonMobile's payroll, and hasn't had any peer-reviewed publications?

 

being one of those non-climate scientists... all i can say is that i can agree with the fact that people forget that scientists tend to have very specific areas of specialty.

i'm a biochemist at heart, a pharmacologist in the making. so i'm a scientist. i don't know squat about bugs. i have an opinion on bugs. i don't like them if they're in my house. but that's a rather non-expert opinion. [sarcasm] but... i'm a scientist! gasp! [/sarcasm] yeah yeah. we can't all be the world authorities on everything.

both sides are equally capable of using the word "scientist" to push their ideas. this is not strictly a tactic of any particular party.

i have nothing expert to say about the issue of global warming, really. i'll leave that to someone who has, well, more expertise than i do. my belief is that we're destroying the planet by being wasteful.

but if there's ever a debate about cellular membrane proteins... i can debate you under the table.

 

It was a lot more fun when Michael Crichton was the poster boy for "Global Warming is blah blah".

I really don't have time to research the latest naysayer du jour. Besides, everytime I do....they start another thread and ignore my posts.

You don't want to believe in Global Warming? Fine. You bought a Prius and I'm happy you did, even though that isn't the reason you bought it. As for Global Warming....I doubt you're going to change anyone's minds.

Shall we discuss keeping the net neutral next?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 15 2006, 09:08 PM) [snapback]272029[/snapback]</div>

Godiva, you and Galaxee are scientists, aren't you? Galaxee seems to say that it is true that a scientist may have an opinion about something, even a strong opinion, but it could be out of their field. But it seems to me that related fields might see something from a slightly different perspective, and be "more correct" than the folks in the specialty.

I just finished the book "Big Bang", a history of the development of the Big Bang theory. The theoretical cosmologists were at first criticised by the astronomers, but then the astronomers started producing evidence that supported the cosmologists. I could see the same type of thing happening with chemists and climatologists.

Pure science can be corrupted by outside interests, including politics, religion, and even funding from private sources, and individual scientists have their own array of private beliefs and prejudices. We always hope that the peer review process takes care of the individual prejudices, and over time, the truth wins out. The thing I worry about is the exercise of political power to enforce one side over the other in a scientific debate; we often forget that along with the Church, all the entrenched scientists of the time were in favor of sanctioning Galileo.

 

Very nicely put fshagan.
------------------------------

As far as global warming goes... we can all hope that an accurate concensus is reached by all the scientists. I would like to add, however, that the potential negatives of human-induced global warming are far more devastating (including economically and financially) than those of corporations losing a comparatively minor percentage reduction in profits by reducing carbon emissions. I am more concerned about the potential impact that rising sea levels would have on people's wellbeing and health rather than how big a home a corporate ceo can buy. Look at Katrina: it is the poorest who are the worst off in any disaster.

Let's hypothesize that scientists a decade from now gather sufficient evidence that global warming is not strongly associated with co2 emissions. ASSUMING that reducing carbon dioxide means losing every possible way to get rich (there could be very some very economical technologies that would not cost much more) and please investors, losing a few billion from a bunch of companies is morally insignificant compared to being responsible for the potential destruction of ecosystems and people's lives. Cry me a new river! So what if you can't afford that new yacht?!

Some of the anti-environmentalists say environmentalists worship global warming. Rather, the anti-enviros worship the dollar. Some of them so much so (ex. Exxon-Mobil) that they forget they too are citizens of the earth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jun 15 2006, 09:11 PM) [snapback]271925[/snapback]</div>

You should retract the idea that the canada free press is apolitical. Just because someone says they are "fair and balanced" doesn't automaticaly mean that they are so. The two hottest terms on the site are Lib and politically correct (that term which is so widely used these days that it is political doublespeak... the use of the term doesn't match the definition anymore... the one that is defined as avoiding saying something in order to not offend someone). Don't just go by what I say... explore the site yourself. Of course, generally speaking, one side is going to agree with it, and the other disagree (the way most debates seem to go these days anyways).

If there is anything going on that some of these authors don't like, they always find some way to insert the term liberal... and make it seems as though the said opinions are "liberal" ideas.
--------

"Here is the curious fact about Earth Day that is not widely known. It is the birthday of Lenin, the icon of Communism who led the Bolshevik revolution that brought the Soviet Union into being. In 1955, the then Soviet Premier, Nikita Krushchev ordered that April 22nd be designated a day to celebrate Communism.

Out of all the days in the year, the founders of Earth Day chose Lenin's birthday. Coincidence? I think not.

In the past, the former Soviet Union spent billions to perpetrate the lie of Communism on the world. On May Day they would stage a huge parade in Red Square. The inner core of the environmental movement today would have celebrated that event with the same fervor they bring to the celebration of Earth Day.

This mass nonsense officially began in 1970 and I am patiently waiting and hoping to be around on the last Earth Day when a grand total of perhaps eight people with nothing better to do show up for its final event."

WHAT BULLSHIT!

 

I think I've heard enough from this site...

"Simultaneously, along the way, a new generation of super-secular Scientists replaced the Biblical account of Divine Creation as a manifestation of God's handiwork with the logically absurd theory that we humans have evolved from apes (recently) and pond scum (ultimately). Today these pseudo-intellectual, self-styled "genius experts" even ridicule the perfectly valid concept of Intelligent Design, derisively calling it "junk science." No inquiring open minds here: nothing but vintage Darwin will do for these Liberal denizens of our academic ivory towers."

"Embryonic stem cell research: it all comes down to murder"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 16 2006, 12:12 AM) [snapback]272065[/snapback]</div>

I'm a librarian. My classes are in Library and Information Science. That includes not only searching but evaluating the results. That's why I look a little beyond who wrote it and what webpage it's on.

I agree we don't want to politicize science. But we also must take into consideration that if we adjust our behavior based on the premise that certain acts ARE causing Global Warming, we're not hurting anything except some bottom line profits. However if we don't and we're WRONG, well, it may very well be too late to say "sorry, oops". And "I told you so" won't fix it.

I say it's better to err on the side of caution.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 16 2006, 11:49 AM) [snapback]272266[/snapback]</div>

AlGore is politicizing science. He can't help doing so. He's a political figure who has always (how many slide shows on global warming has he given?) felt he was an expert in climatology. His "doom and gloom" outlook is extreme ... just like the measures and time line he proposes.

The article quotes some real scientists with expertise in the arena of global warming, and they say Al's claims are based upon "junk" science. I believe them over Al ... the same holds true for a librarian.

BTW - Your argument is "better to err on the side of caution." Does that mean you wear a rain coat all day, every day? It's better to err on the side of caution, y'know. Maybe you should wear a safety helmet and protective eye wear continuously as well. It's also easier than saying "Oops."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jun 16 2006, 02:18 PM) [snapback]272318[/snapback]</div>

Ummm, is this contempt for caution a full-time thing, or do only certain messengers bring it on?...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jun 16 2006, 11:18 AM) [snapback]272318[/snapback]</div>

And George Bush with his big business and oil interests isn't?

I'd prefer to err on the safe side, spending money at home (instead of flushing it away on Bush's Iraq adventure towards the American Empire) to work towards reducing the human impact on our world, rather than running around ala Bush with my eyes closed to the possibility of an questionable situation sliding into a disaster through in action for profit motives. Addressing environmental issues will take leadership. SOmething notiacbly absent in the Washington funnyfarm.

In any case. the development of clean technology is and will continue to be a major financial coup for those companies and governments that are far sighted enough to see beyond their next quarter balance sheet. Technology means jobs and the jobs and earnings that will come out of development of green technology will make the earnings of Silicon Valley look like the spending on a weekend party. This is no different from the leadership that FDR exhibited when he pushed programs that created the largest middle class economy in the world. Programs that the vast majoroty of big business were against because it hurt their myopic view of their desire to maximize short term profits. [/RANT]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mehrenst @ Jun 16 2006, 02:56 PM) [snapback]272334[/snapback]</div>

Hey! You and Bush think alike. A good market and technology driven approach with a few government incentives thrown in. Bush would be proud of you.

The alternative is the "Thou shalt produce 30% fewer emissions in 5 years" type of regulation that pull targets out of a hat without regard for whether or not they are feasible.

 

The people politicizing science are the ones who are hedging the debate as liberal vs conservative idealogy.

Of all of you naysayers, how many of you have even opened his book?

(I read through it a few days ago, and he does a good job at explaining common myths that people like you love to throw around)


Weigh the cost vs benefits of moving to a carbon reduced economy and you will see that the cons of changing our ways are far less than cons of changing and reducing our carbon footprints.




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jun 16 2006, 02:18 PM) [snapback]272318[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jun 16 2006, 02:18 PM) [snapback]272318[/snapback]</div>

It is true that Al Gore is not an expert. Many others claiming to be experts are also not experts for some comments by climatologists (the experts) see http://www.realclimate.org/
for a specific comment on Gore's movie by realclimate see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...movie/#more-299

The raincoat safety helmet comment is mildly amusing. I would liken taking action on global warming more like safety belts, air bags, or stability control in a car except that the effect of inaction if it turns out that climatologists (those who publish in peer reviewed scientific journals) are correct it effects not only a single family or individual, but the entire planet.

Dennis

 

These scientists are of the minority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien...rming_consensus

Overview of global warming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

"Only a small minority of scientists contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures. However, the uncertainty is more significant regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and there is a hotly contested political and public debate over what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to cope with the consequences."

 

Global warming should be pretty obvious to everyone by this time. You put a blanket on you get warmer. Nothing complicated about it. All Al Gore did in the movie is show the data that shows past consequences. Nothing to debate about that. Doesn't take a super scientist to read a thermometer.

With all these critics I have yet to hear one that makes any logical sense, or proposes any other plausible explanations for the data, or explains why it is wrong. All they sound like is the same lobbyists that flood the media with false information about the dangers of the Prius. And just like the anti-prius articles, most of these anti global warming articles are jsut as self-contradictory.

 

Sounds similar to the intelligent design debate... they denounce the fact of evolution and uphold ID, yet they provide absolutely no evidence to back up ID, and no scientific peer-reviewed literature. edit... yes that is exaggeration... global warming naysayers probably do have peer reviewed articles... but I have been reading a lot the past few hours and the evidence in favor of anthropomorphic climate change is very compelling.